NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I honestly don't know where to place myself in the abortion debate, but I just came up with an interesting pro-life argument:

In biology, life is defined as "that which is made up of cells." The fertilized egg qualifies as a cell, correct? So biologically, this cell qualifies as being life . . .

In biology, life is defined as "that which is made up of cells."

Whence comes this rather idiosyncratic definition?

So are cows that you eat. And so are your skin cells. But judging by the stuff that Saddam was allowed to get away with for so long, no one really cares about life anyway, until it inconviences them.

My dictionary says Life starts from birth till death so by that Abortion can't qualify as ending life.
Life can't be ended that never started.

My dictionary says Life starts from birth till death so by that Abortion can't qualify as ending life.
Life can't be ended that never started.

really

i thought the definition was anything that reproduces another creature with obvious genetic material being passed on to the next generation

really

i thought the definition was anything that reproduces another creature with obvious genetic material being passed on to the next generation
Masturbation is suicide.

brought to you by the We Love Life A-Whole-Lot foundation

really

i thought the definition was anything that reproduces another creature with obvious genetic material being passed on to the next generation
Life:
1. the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
2. The physical and mental experiences of an individual
3. Biography
4. A specific phase or period
5. the period from birth to death
6. A way of living
7. Person
8. Animation, spirit, liveliness
9. Animate activity

Also a state of an organism characterized esp. by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

If your definition makes virus' count as living.

Ok, I honestly don't know where to place myself in the abortion debate, but I just came up with an interesting pro-life argument:

In biology, life is defined as "that which is made up of cells." The fertilized egg qualifies as a cell, correct? So biologically, this cell qualifies as being life . . .

That just defines what life is. It does not deal at all with the anti or pro-choice political arguments.

i thought the definition was anything that reproduces another creature with obvious genetic material being passed on to the next generation
Nope. Life actually does require cells. That is why viruses are considered kind of half-alive, it's debated, and prions are not alive at all. Granted, only viruses pass on genetic material, prions merely converting other proteins, but still, they reproduce.

And life is defined by more than just cellular make-up. The ovum is not alive, though the sperm is. And yes, the zygote is alive as well.

Regarding ending life, every time you scratch your arm you are killing microorganisms. They are all alive. It is impossible for any macroorganism to live without killing other things, because of pathogens that attempt to destroy the organism. Pro-life people do not argue against the ending of life, they argue aggainst the ending of innocent human life.

My dictionary says Life starts from birth till death so by that Abortion can't qualify as ending life.
Life can't be ended that never started.

Well, if you choose to believe the dictionary over the Bible, yes. But does that mean the you can kill a 9 month old fetus and it's perfectly fine? As long as it's not been 'born'? For that matter, Julius Caesar said he wasn't 'born of a woman' because he was delivered via caesarean section. We're supposed to kill cows and things like that for food, but a human being is another matter.

Abortion isn't about what is or isn't life.

There are plenty of cases, plenty of situations, that should be solved with abortion. If, for example, the mother may die if she gives birth to the child. Or if the child will die shortly after birth. Or if the child has a severely debilitating disease preventing it from living for too long. Or if the child has some other disease forcing it to live a life of constant pain and misery.

In such cases, the child should be put out of it's misery for it's own good.

That is all there is to it. If you are anti-abortion, then you are pro-child suffering.

If your definition makes virus' count as living.

I don't think the argument is a particularly good one (anyone who knows biology recognizes that a fetus is alive, the debate is over personhood) but I think I ought to correct you here anyway. Virii are not made up of cells.

Well, if you choose to believe the dictionary over the Bible, yes. But does that mean the you can kill a 9 month old fetus and it's perfectly fine? As long as it's not been 'born'? For that matter, Julius Caesar said he wasn't 'born of a woman' because he was delivered via caesarean section. We're supposed to kill cows and things like that for food, but a human being is another matter.
Read the bible: a fetus is worth a fine at the most. The issue is only dealt with in the old testament...I think it was numbers but I forget which (bnumvbers is long and boring)

So which bible does it say what you are saying?

Oh and if Juluis Caesae was born caesarean than he is alive if he got to take a breath for that is when the spirit enters the body for keeps.

Virii are not made up of cells.
"Virii" is a very bad solecism. The word "virus" comes from the Latin virus, which means "poison". It was a mass noun, and had no possible plural. Its declension isn't even decided. The only proper plural of the word is "viruses". Never, ever do that again.

My dictionary says Life starts from birth till death so by that Abortion can't qualify as ending life.
Life can't be ended that never started.
Then your dictionary would be wrong. Life is not characterised by birth nor death. Theoretically, there are some types of cells that are immortal. There is no birth for many, many organisms, so that is just an absurd definition. Especially seeming as many living things are not even organisms.

Abortion isn't about what is or isn't life.

There are plenty of cases, plenty of situations, that should be solved with abortion. If, for example, the mother may die if she gives birth to the child. Or if the child will die shortly after birth. Or if the child has a severely debilitating disease preventing it from living for too long. Or if the child has some other disease forcing it to live a life of constant pain and misery.

In such cases, the child should be put out of it's misery for it's own good.

That is all there is to it. If you are anti-abortion, then you are pro-child suffering.

You're right!! And one day, if God forbid you're in a horrible car wreck and break your back, maybe the paramedics will just smother you at the scene so that you won't have to 'suffer' for the rest of your life. Put you and your family out of it's misery.

I am certainly pro-life, but even I understand extenuating circumstances. The life of the mother is in jeopardy, the baby is dying . . . but who are you or anyone else to say that just because someone is born with a disability or a defect that he can't serve a purpose? Why is he less important than you? Should we kill any baby that has a cleft pallet? They're not 'perfect'. I guess Christopher Reeves should have just been shot right after he fell off that horse.

Read the bible: a fetus is worth a fine at the most. The issue is only dealt with in the old testament...I think it was numbers but I forget which (bnumvbers is long and boring)

So which bible does it say what you are saying?

Oh and if Juluis Caesae was born caesarean than he is alive if he got to take a breath for that is when the spirit enters the body for keeps.

Exodus 20-The Ten Commandments- Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Nope. Life actually does require cells. That is why viruses are considered kind of half-alive, it's debated, and prions are not alive at all. Granted, only viruses pass on genetic material, prions merely converting other proteins, but still, they reproduce.

And life is defined by more than just cellular make-up. The ovum is not alive, though the sperm is. And yes, the zygote is alive as well.

Regarding ending life, every time you scratch your arm you are killing microorganisms. They are all alive. It is impossible for any macroorganism to live without killing other things, because of pathogens that attempt to destroy the organism. Pro-life people do not argue against the ending of life, they argue aggainst the ending of innocent human life.


EEEEEEH, you don't half talk some poop laddy.

There are seven charateristics that define whether or not something is a life. Cells or a lack of them is not one of those characteristics. So it is concievable that somewhere they maybe an acellular lifeform.



Also sperm are not "alive" in a biological sense, because they cannot reproduce. (One of the characterstics)

Masturbation is suicide.

You're missing it. Menstration is murder.

EEEEEEH, you don't half talk some poop laddy.

There are seven charateristics that define whether or not something is a life. Cells or a lack of them is not one of those characteristics. So it is concievable that somewhere they maybe an acellular lifeform.



Also sperm are not "alive" in a biological sense, because they cannot reproduce. (One of the characterstics)
Really? That's fascinating, because it just so happens that reproduction happens to be the requirement for an organism, not life. Oopsies. And, y'know, it's actually kind of funny...viruses aren't alive. But they reproduce! Would you like to know why it is they are not considered alive? Because they are not composed of cells! Apparently, you are severely lacking in some pathology education, here.

Ok, I honestly don't know where to place myself in the abortion debate, but I just came up with an interesting pro-life argument:

In biology, life is defined as "that which is made up of cells." The fertilized egg qualifies as a cell, correct? So biologically, this cell qualifies as being life . . .

1. As pointed out above, that's a rather idiosyncratic definition. In fact every definition I've seen posted so far is incorrect or incomplete.

Wikipeadia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#A_conventional_definition) gives this conventional definition:

In biology, an entity has traditionally been considered to be alive if it exhibits all the following phenomena at least once during its existence:

1. Growth
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.

There is debates about specifics that may be added and exceptions that may be made, but the above deginition agrees with most other definitions I've found online. A sampleing:
http://experts.about.com/q/664/470120.htm
www.erm.tu-cottbus.de/~lippein/studies/2003/wil.pdf
www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/maderinquiry/crit3ans.html

2. So what? There is a difference between alive and being a separate organism.

Really? That's fascinating, because it just so happens that reproduction happens to be the requirement for an organism, not life. Oopsies. And, y'know, it's actually kind of funny...viruses aren't alive. But they reproduce! Would you like to know why it is they are not considered alive? Because they are not composed of cells! Apparently, you are severely lacking in some pathology education, here.

It is both a requirement for the conventional definitions of both life and organisms given in every biology class I've ever attended. See above.

Oh, and viruses are debated because they don't reproduce unaided (as I'm sure you know. ;))



My dictionary says Life starts from birth till death so by that Abortion can't qualify as ending life.
Life can't be ended that never started.

Then your dictionary would be wrong. Life is not characterised by birth nor death. Theoretically, there are some types of cells that are immortal. There is no birth for many, many organisms, so that is just an absurd definition. Especially seeming as many living things are not even organisms.

You are both right. It is a convemtional dictionary definition of life. But it is not the conventional biological definition, which is what the OP specified.

"Virii" is a very bad solecism. The word "virus" comes from the Latin virus, which means "poison". It was a mass noun, and had no possible plural. Its declension isn't even decided. The only proper plural of the word is "viruses". Never, ever do that again.

I've seen it both ways, and just typed the one that came to mind first.

They still don't have cells. :p

You are both right. It is a convemtional dictionary definition of life. But it is not the conventional biological definition, which is what the OP specified.
I admit, that the above criteria you gave are much better than what I said. I meant to get to those, but I was too busy criticising people for saying that gene transfer characterises life, or that birth is necessary. Bacteria are not alive if birth is required. Neither are any other the other kingdoms excluding Animalia, though I guess it could be argued that Plantae and a few members of Fungi also are "born". And that completely rules out mitosis as a methos of reproduction. And has anyone ever heard of cell theory? Is it outdated or what, because I thought that cell theory is still part of conventional biology.

Really? That's fascinating, because it just so happens that reproduction happens to be the requirement for an organism, not life. Oopsies. And, y'know, it's actually kind of funny...viruses aren't alive. But they reproduce! Would you like to know why it is they are not considered alive? Because they are not composed of cells! Apparently, you are severely lacking in some pathology education, here.

Pathology = study of disease.

As I said life is defined as having seven fundamental charateristics, one of which is reproduction.

None of those characteristics are "having cells". While I do not know of one, it is entirely possible that a form of acellular life may be discovered.

Viruses are not "alive" because, inter alia, they do not respire or need nutrition. Not because they are not cells. This is third grade biology. It is you who needs some education.

I admit, that the above criteria you gave are much better than what I said. I meant to get to those, but I was too busy criticising people for saying that gene transfer characterises life, or that birth is necessary. Bacteria are not alive if birth is required. Neither are any other the other kingdoms excluding Animalia, though I guess it could be argued that Plantae and a few members of Fungi also are "born". And that completely rules out mitosis as a methos of reproduction. And has anyone ever heard of cell theory? Is it outdated or what, because I thought that cell theory is still part of conventional biology.

No problem. Both stamping out ignorance as we go. ;) Cell theory (http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/unity/cell.text.htm)'s still a cornerstone AFAIK.
:D

Cell theory (http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/unity/cell.text.htm)'s still a cornerstone AFAIK.
:D
But...if cell theory is still accepted, then why is there any argument about the cellular necessity for life? That really is kind of a part of the whole current thing...though it's possible to be disproven, it is not according to modern biology.

Pathology = study of disease.
Well, to be bitchy about it, pathology is literally the study of pathogens, and more commonly used to detail the study of the nature of diseases and the structural and functional changes brought about by their infection. Demiology is the study of disease, and epidemiology the study of the distribution of diseases.

Viruses are not "alive" because, inter alia, they do not respire or need nutrition.
You missed my point. It is simply that cells are, to our knowledge, the only way for life to exist. As I stated above, cell theory specifically states this, which is still quite a part of biology. I was really trying to put it more into laymen's terms so that those less well versed in biology would understand. And then I got carried away by mocking you because it was fun. I apologise for that, I was just playing around. I am very impulsive and spontaneous. Drives some people nuts.

A physicist might say that life is anything that can use energy to create order from chaos on a local level - that is, basically, anything that can grow or expand itself.

Abortion isn't about what is or isn't life.

There are plenty of cases, plenty of situations, that should be solved with abortion. If, for example, the mother may die if she gives birth to the child. Or if the child will die shortly after birth. Or if the child has a severely debilitating disease preventing it from living for too long. Or if the child has some other disease forcing it to live a life of constant pain and misery.

In such cases, the child should be put out of it's misery for it's own good.

That is all there is to it. If you are anti-abortion, then you are pro-child suffering.

Can i just say.. statistics would show that of all the abortions conducted within this country.. the abortions you've just suggested dont even make up half of all abortions.. in fact most are conducted simply because a woman dosn't want the burden of a child for whatever reason ..

and since u want to kill a child because it will have a disablity.. why not save our healthcare system and whipe out those leeches on our government who are no longer productive members of society.. because we as people do not kill others simply because of their disabilities..

If this is the only reason for abortion.. im sure u woul dhave many more pro-life people willing to outlaw abortion with teh exceptions of death to the mother or other extrenuating circumstances.. instead of letting people belive they have some right to take a life.. for their own seflish reasons

If your pro-abortion.. ur pro - murder

You missed my point. It is simply that cells are, to our knowledge, the only way for life to exist. As I stated above, cell theory specifically states this, which is still quite a part of biology. I was really trying to put it more into laymen's terms so that those less well versed in biology would understand. And then I got carried away by mocking you because it was fun. I apologise for that, I was just playing around. I am very impulsive and spontaneous. Drives some people nuts.

No I got your point. I just don't think you can say that viruses are not alive because they are not cells.

As I said, I know of no life form that is not cellular. However, that does not preclude the possiblity of such an organism existing under our definition of life. Had we been conversing thirty years ago it would have been a given that all lifeforms ultimately rely upon sunlight to sustain their ecosystem. Now we know that this is not the case.

And I really wasn't offended. Trust me. I enjoy trading barbs. :)

Originally Posted by Lacadaemon
Viruses are not "alive" because, inter alia, they do not respire or need nutrition.

does a fetus need nutrition ?

If a fetus is only considered a "person" after a certain level of brain development.. why arn't we carting away the children with brain disabilities whose brain capacity is no more then monkeys, or disabled people who are classified as vegtiables.. it would releave such a strain on our healthcare system too.. according to the logic of pro-choice

Ok, I honestly don't know where to place myself in the abortion debate, but I just came up with an interesting pro-life argument:

In biology, life is defined as "that which is made up of cells." The fertilized egg qualifies as a cell, correct? So biologically, this cell qualifies as being life . . .
1. your definition is quite murky and not at all sufficient, since a dead body is also made up of cells.
2. nobody with a brain disputes that a fetus is alive, the dispute is as to whether it is a human being or not, and whether it would have any right of claim to another human being's body.

If your pro-abortion.. ur pro - murder
please learn to use the language correctly; "murder" refers to the unlawful ending of a human life, and thus even if a fetus is a human life (which you haven't established) it is still not murder because it is not an unlawful act.

"Virii" is a very bad solecism. The word "virus" comes from the Latin virus, which means "poison". It was a mass noun, and had no possible plural. Its declension isn't even decided. The only proper plural of the word is "viruses". Never, ever do that again.

Virii is commonly used as the plural to for virus in reference to computer virii, it can be perfectly exceptable in some contexts, just not this one. ;)

Simon says, if people want to let humanity die by not reproducting enough, so be it.
I'm not pro-life or pro-choice, I'm pro-shut-the-fuck-up-and-die-you-leech.

If a fetus is only considered a "person" after a certain level of brain development.. why arn't we carting away the children with brain disabilities whose brain capacity is no more then monkeys, or disabled people who are classified as vegtiables.. it would releave such a strain on our healthcare system too.. according to the logic of pro-choice
children and the mentally handicapped have different rights than "full" persons, under the law. people who are classified as vegitables are denied many rights that another human of the same age would be granted, based entirely upon the vegitable's inability to exercise those rights.

if you wish to give fetuses the same rights as human children because they may one day become human children, then your logic also leads us to conclude that human children should have the same rights as adult humans because they will one day be adults.

I'm pro-choice. Definately. But hear this, supporting my choice -

Man, if fetuses are living people then, yeah, let them live. However, if that living person is within American borders then it is an ipso facto American citizen, which means that it better participate in the American society. I expect the fetus to pay taxes, go to school, get a job, and have insurance. I expect that fetus to vote. If this healthy member of society doesn't do any of that...then I shake my head in shame. That fetus is mooching off our economy! I say, then, kill this nonvisible social miscreant! Thank you.

Well, if you choose to believe the dictionary over the Bible, yes. But does that mean the you can kill a 9 month old fetus and it's perfectly fine? As long as it's not been 'born'? For that matter, Julius Caesar said he wasn't 'born of a woman' because he was delivered via caesarean section. We're supposed to kill cows and things like that for food, but a human being is another matter.


Perhaps you should re-read your Bible.. http://ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php

Ok, I honestly don't know where to place myself in the abortion debate, but I just came up with an interesting pro-life argument:

In biology, life is defined as "that which is made up of cells." The fertilized egg qualifies as a cell, correct? So biologically, this cell qualifies as being life . . .
So I take it you don't cut your hair or your nails anymore?
They made up of cells (and human DNA) - and hence alive by your definition. And they cut bits certainly stop growing, thus meaning you've 'killed' them.
Then there's washing. Think about all those live skin cells that you scrape off and 'kill' each time.

Abortion isn't about what is or isn't life.

There are plenty of cases, plenty of situations, that should be solved with abortion. If, for example, the mother may die if she gives birth to the child. Or if the child will die shortly after birth. Or if the child has a severely debilitating disease preventing it from living for too long. Or if the child has some other disease forcing it to live a life of constant pain and misery.

In such cases, the child should be put out of it's misery for it's own good.

That is all there is to it. If you are anti-abortion, then you are pro-child suffering.
actually i think abortion is more about what is and what is not society's business.

a newly fertilized egg isnt even known to its host. ive read statistics (although i have no way of knowing how true they are) that less than half of all fertilized eggs implant in a woman's uterus. should we be holding funerals for these unknown embryos?

in the first 3 months of gestation the fetus is known only to the woman and those she chooses to tell, its HER business. if she feels unable or unwilling to bring the fetus to viability that is her business and the abortion she has is no different than any of the million miscarriages that occur without intervention and that we have no funerals for.

once a woman starts to "show" her prenancy becomes public knowlege and society's business so we have laws that progressively restrict when she can get an abortion. not to mention that abortions go from fairly unremarkable to utterly horrific in the later months. they become a disincentive all on their own.

in any case the thing i think you should consider in this "cells are alive" debate is

a fetus is human but it is not a person; it is alive but it is not a baby.